If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Again, you're dancing around the point. The point is, those things I mentioned were heralded by the left and the so called secular progressives as pieces of art and were free to be shown in a public forum(in the case of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung a vaginas cut from flick books was on display at a tax payer funded museum). When Christians spoke out against these works of art, they were told essentially to shut up and that displaying those pieces of garbage were protected by the first amendment. Again, these blasphemous works of "art" were put on display in a publicaly owned museum which in my book is no different than a Nativity scene in a city park so again I ask, why is it OK to display images mocking or blaspheming religious icons and yet it isn't OK to put up a Nativity scene or the 10 commandments in a public area? If you don't see the difference between the 2 then you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

Ok I googled this as suggested and since it was the city government that sued to have it removed my first responce would be to ask why you were so upset...government tried to get rid of it! As for the courts ruling I don't care about the ruling. The city had its day in court and lost...move on. Also, this is an old case and the painting has since been purchased and remove so why is this on conservative radar? Aren't there more current examples for you to use. Now about navativity scenes, I have already stated that I didn't care about seasonal religious exibits though a permanent exibit of the ten commandments in a courthouse very much crosses the line. The question I would ask is why you think it (the ten commandments) is approprite? Now, are you happy?

The Jews were the victims, the Germans(regardless of religion) catapulted Hitler to the top. Their economy collapsed, and the Nazi's promised them honor after the Versailles treaty. The people wanted Hitler, and they got him, and all his craziness.

In rationalism rights are the tenets derived from logical thought...given that this nation was birthed at the end of the Age of Reason my best guess would be rational logic.

You are assuming that all persons, looking at the same situation, would come to the same conclusions based on the same logical thought process. This is one of the fallacies of those who assume that logic must dictate values and conduct. One can logically decide that a baby has no immediate value, and can therefore be disposed of. Logic, unhinged from any values, breeds more than its share of atrocities.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

No one has, to my knowledge , been killed for believing in the wrong version of wood nymphs.

Druids. Lots of them.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Art is by its nature political and is historically paid for and displayed by both private and government patrons, not the least of which has been the Catholic Church both as government and cultural feif. A museum and a school are not the same thing at all. A museum serves alcohol, a primary school does not. Colleges are publicly supported, even the private ones, and there is speech allowed there which would be prohibited in a public K-12.

There are a number of fallacies here. Art is not, by its nature, political. A portrait of a loved one is not a political statement, nor is a still life of a bowl of fruit or a landscape. The presumption that art is political is simply a means of justifying politicization of art. Similarly, a museum doesn't have to serve alcohol in order to be a museum (although in the case of modern art, a certain amount of alcohol may be required to overcome the audience's natural revulsion). The infusion of public money into private colleges does not mean that they are somehow public institution, it only means that the federal government has found a way to insert itself into their business.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Religion is also political, and as I am certain you would disapprove of a an elementary school assembly which promotes that the Pilgrims were murdering conquerors (as would I) then you would also object to promoting religion in the school.

Religion, as a whole, can be political, but doesn't have to be. The Constitutional proscription against an establishment of religion was meant to prevent the abuses of the English Crown, which had broken away from the Catholic Church and then used its authority to ransack the property of those churches and require membership in the Church of England as a condition of holding office, owning property or otherwise being treated as anything but a serf. The full text of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Clearly, the elimination of God from a child's speech would constitute a violation of both the free exercise clause and the right to free speech.

And, we'd object to a characterization of the Pilgrims as murdering conquerors, not because it is an attack on a religion or religious groups, but because it is false.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The only issue here is whether the girl reading her poem amounts to promotion. I naturally would suspect that like so many of these hobgoblin events the child was coached. But my suspicion isn't based in anything other than propensity which isn't fair to the individual. So I would say that this child and this poem were not objectionable. However, that 8 year old shouting evangelist who seems to think he was the Ernest Angely of the fourth grade is another matter. Kids imitating Elvis is cute. Kids exhibiting zealotry is disturbing because it's affected and inflicted.

Whether or not it is cute, it is protected speech, or would be, under the First Amendment.

Originally Posted by PeterS

I spoke out against a replica of the ten commandments being placed in a courthouse. If you view this as some frothing intrest in religion you are mistaken. My intrest is in the principles upon which this country was founded and nothing more...

The Ten Commandments is a historic legal document. Would you have a similar objection to a replica of the Code of Hammurabi or Magna Carta in a US courtroom? Our statues of justice are representations of the Roman goddess, Justicia, or the Greek Themis, which are religious icons of the Roman state religion and the Greek. Shall we eliminate these from all courts? Perhaps we should go the Muslim route, and ban any depictions of anything, which the Muslims consider idolatry, but which our elites would simply find to be politically correct.